Model comparison

MiMo-V2-Pro vs Qwen3 32B

MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

MiMo-V2-Pro Xiaomi

43.0

Rank #103 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen3 32B in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where MiMo-V2-Pro leads 62.8 to 52.9.
  • MiMo-V2-Pro is cheaper at $0.43 / $0.87 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
  • MiMo-V2-Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

MiMo-V2-Pro and Qwen3 32B specifications
MiMo-V2-ProQwen3 32B
ProviderXiaomiAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index43.039.2
Released2026-03-182025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1.05M131K
Max output131K16K
Input $ / M tokens$0.43$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.87$2.80
Results tracked2326

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding MiMo-V2-Pro leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 43.8 (#83), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Coding14761358
Aider Polyglot—40%
LMArena WebDev1433—
SciCode—35.4%
ALE-Bench785.17—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

MiMo-V2-Pro: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%

Reasoning MiMo-V2-Pro leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 22.1 (#206), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14571334
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
NYT Connections (extended)25.8%—
CritPt—0.3%
Chess Puzzles—5%
Thematic Generalization45.9%—
DTBench—67.5%
LMCA—17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index—138.51

Math Too close to call

MiMo-V2-Pro: 39.5 (#102), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Math14471399
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—66.9%

Knowledge MiMo-V2-Pro leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.4 (#111), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Expert14781362
GPQA Diamond—65.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—5.9%

Multilingual MiMo-V2-Pro leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 52.7 (#81), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English14161317
LMArena Chinese14561357
LMArena German14171341
LMArena Russian14271311
LMArena French1469—
LMArena Japanese1366—
LMArena Korean1400—
LMArena Spanish1457—

Instruction Following MiMo-V2-Pro leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 76.0 (#49), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following14451305

Long Context Qwen3 32B leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 41.5 (#138), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query14551327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%
CL-bench15.7%—
CL-bench Life6.9%—

Writing & Preference MiMo-V2-Pro leads

MiMo-V2-Pro: 62.8 (#70), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkMiMo-V2-ProQwen3 32B
LMArena Text14361340
LMArena Creative Writing14151297
LMArena Multi-Turn14561331

Frequently asked questions

Is MiMo-V2-Pro better than Qwen3 32B?

MiMo-V2-Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, MiMo-V2-Pro or Qwen3 32B?

MiMo-V2-Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is MiMo-V2-Pro or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

MiMo-V2-Pro scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.8 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

MiMo-V2-Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do MiMo-V2-Pro and Qwen3 32B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. MiMo-V2-Pro has 23 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper